Standing Committee G

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Clause 73 - Compulsory acquisition of land  for development etc

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 434, in
clause 73, page 47, line 10 after 'authority', insert 
 'after consultation with all interested parties and the public.'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 425, in 
clause 73, page 47, line 10, leave out 'think' and insert 
 'has reasonable grounds to believe'.
 Amendment No. 430, in 
clause 73, page 47, line 10, leave out 'think' and insert 'can demonstrate'.
 Amendment No. 431, in 
clause 73, page 47, line 10, leave out 'will facilitate' and insert 'is necessary for'.
 Amendment No. 426, in 
clause 73, page 47, line 16, leave out 'think' and insert 
 'has reasonable grounds to believe'.
 Amendment No. 432, in 
clause 73, page 47, line 16, leave out 'think' and insert 'can demonstrate'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Good morning, Mr. Amess, and members of the Committee. Today we have reached the home-straight—the last two sittings on the Bill—and, following the extremely tight timetable set by the Government, we will be considering part 7, which relates to compulsory purchase, and part 8. We would argue that that timetable is unsustainably tight, in that much of parts 1 and 2—the two key sections of the Bill—was not debated. There was a reasonable debate on part 3, but important aspects of part 4, on simplified planning zones, were not debated, and part 5—''Correction of errors''—was not debated at all. We did, however, have an entire sitting on part 6, ''Wales'', and debated that part fully; we believe that the system suggested for Wales is better than that for England.
 Let us see whether we can do better on part 7. Compulsory purchase is a pretty all-embracing power. Totalitarian, authoritarian, dirigiste regimes all over the world—Zimbabwe is a typical example—have three features. They tend to kill people on a whim, they tend to imprison people without proper trial and proper process, and they take property away from people without proper compensation or process. 
 We in this country, as a democracy, are far more civilised than that, and we have a proper compulsory 
 purchase regime. The Government intend to revise that regime, and we are concerned this morning to make sure that that revision is even fairer to the citizen than the present system, and that it delivers a speedier outcome at a reasonable cost. There is no doubt that the proposed measures will cost more. 
 Westminster city council, for example, tells us that the problem with the current system is that 
''the laws and procedures affecting compulsory purchase are unwieldy and extremely complex. This has led to a situation where the vast majority of local authorities have little or no expertise or experience of compulsory purchase orders''—
 I will refer to them as CPOs from now on— 
''and are therefore reluctant to use them.''

David Wilshire: Good.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right. Compulsory purchase orders should be used only as a last resort, because they are a pretty all-encompassing power—[Interruption.] I shall now come, as the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister suggests I should, to amendment No. 434.
 By tabling this group of amendments, we sought to explore with the Government what the acquiring authority must do before it enters into the compulsory purchase procedure. We have received several representations on the subject, not least from the farming community. Many compulsory purchase powers are used to acquire farms and agricultural land, and the Country Land and Business Association argues that 
''Local authorities have not made the case for a change in section 226''
 of the principal Act. 
''This matter was discussed at length by the Compulsory Purchase Policy Review Advisory Group, set up by Government to advise on reform.''
 The CLA continues: 
''The law at present affords reasonable protection for individuals' private property without unduly constraining the ability of local authorities to engage in regeneration projects. This was demonstrated by the Group, which pointed to major regeneration undertaken under section 226 powers by Medway Unitary Council in an underutilised area, and Leicester City Council at the Bede Island site.''
 That is one of the major reasons why we use compulsory purchase powers to aid inner city regeneration, which has slowed down under this Government because there are too many fragmented schemes and nobody knows what they all are. It would be better if they were amalgamated; it would make it easier for the acquiring authorities, too, although that is another matter. 
 The CLA goes on to argue: 
''it is reasonable for local authorities seeking to exercise the draconian power of compulsory purchase to demonstrate the acquisition of land is necessary to achieve the desired objective. The power to dispossess an individual, perhaps to deprive a senior citizen of the home in which he or she grew up, by compulsion, is one that we argue should be properly tested''—
 exactly as I said in my opening remarks— 
''before being exercised. The proposed clause does not provide that test.''
 Note the words at the end of that passage. 
 In addition, the National Farmers Union argues that some acquiring authorities, which are subject to the courts, exercise their powers unreasonably. It cites the case of a dairy farmer in the Isle of Wight who had his farm acquired simply because the local council was pandering to the whims of neighbours who did not like the smells and noise. 
 We seek, through the amendments, to probe the Government's thinking on the behaviour of acquiring authorities. Through amendment No. 434 we aim to specify what the local authority has to do before it exercises the powers. We say: 
''after 'authority', insert 'after consultation with all interested parties and the public.'.''
 Before those draconian powers are exercised, it is reasonable that some form of consultation should take place. It will be interesting to see what the Minister has to say about that. 
 Amendment No. 425 involves the old argument about the subjective test. We say: 
''leave out 'think' and insert 'has reasonable grounds to believe'''
 because there should be a more objective test. We have noted too many times in this Bill that the authority only has to ''think''. That is a subjective test. If a matter goes to the High Court for judicial review, the judge cannot think what a reasonable man might construe as being reasonable, he only has to think what the authority thinks is reasonable. I object to that subjective wording. Surely in a democracy, particularly in relation to such overwhelming powers, the test should be more objective. That might sound like an esoteric argument, but it is important. 
 Amendment No. 431 aims to make it absolutely clear what the acquiring authority must comply with before a CPO is issued. One of the tests must be that it ''is necessary for'' something—again, strengthening the objectivity. When somebody's home is being repossessed, it should be made crystal clear not only to that person but to all his relatives, and to the public, why the local authority is doing that. The amendments would make the clause clearer. I welcome the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women to her place today—it is always nice to see her smiling face—and it will be interesting to hear what she has to say.

David Amess: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I remind the Committee that we can have only one clause stand part debate.

Matthew Green: I was about to speak to the Conservative amendments with some degree of enthusiasm—until I heard the hon. Gentleman likening the situation here to that in Zimbabwe, which worried me a little.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Again, the hon. Gentleman deliberately misrepresents me. I specifically said that we were trying to make things fair, so that it will not be like such regimes here.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has now clarified that for the Committee.
 I support the amendments. They are relatively modest, and I hope that the Minister will consider them in that context. The compulsory purchase provisions are generally welcomed by many organisations. However, we must ensure that the Bill includes sufficient safeguards. I think that Ministers will find it difficult to argue against the sort of consultation suggested in amendment No. 434, although I expect that we shall be told that it will be done through regulations. We have this argument so many times in Committee—whenever I speak, I suspect—but we need to be reassured that there will be consultation; if not, I would like to see a requirement included in the Bill. 
 The insertion of the words ''reasonable grounds to believe'' and ''can demonstrate'', as suggested in amendments Nos. 425 and 430 respectively, would strengthen the test that a local authority has to apply when seeking a compulsory purchase. On balance, our proposals have a degree of merit, and I hope that the Minister will address sympathetically those modest but necessary amendments.

David Wilshire: I, too, welcome the Minister of State to the Committee. The big guns have clearly been wheeled out for the final day. I hope that the hon. Lady will be as entertained as her colleagues have been; in their absence, we shall certainly do our best to give her an interesting morning.
 I appreciate what you said about a clause stand part debate, Mr. Amess. However, there are some general issues associated with compulsory purchase that I would like to raise, especially with regard to suggested new subsection (1A) of section 226 of the 1990 Act, which are outside the scope of the amendments. If as the debate on this or the next group of amendments unfolds, you change your mind and decide not to allow a general debate, I shall take the opportunity to speak on that subject now; otherwise, I give notice that I shall wish to speak on those other matters later. 
 For the moment, however, we are debating six amendments. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said, amendment No. 434 is the most important of the group. I have huge reservations about compulsory purchase, which I shall explain later. I believe that the overriding argument that brings me to support it in certain circumstances is the public interest, which must be balanced against the interests of the individual. I would not trust—I use that word advisedly—experts and officials to judge that. The public should be involved when the power of what I would call confiscation is used in their name against individuals. 
 I therefore agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow that the Bill must include reference to consultation with the very people who are being invoked as the justification for the use of those powers. It is essential that some form of words should appear in the Bill. I have said many times—although I realise that the Minister of State was not here to hear me—that I am not personally wedded to the wording of the amendments; there are many other ways of saying that there must be consultation with the public and with interested parties. We must ensure, when we use that power in the name of the public, that the public 
 are with us. That part of the consultation becomes crucial. 
 People who are about to have their land confiscated deserve to be involved in the process. It is far better to begin discussions with interested parties, which would include the landowners, at the earliest possible moment, because there is then a sporting chance that the person who is about to lose his land may begin to understand why it is a good idea. Simply to say, ''We are going to talk to the public, we are going to do this and that,'' and then tell people what is going to happen is no way to win them over to what will always be a difficult process. 
 Amendment No. 434 is essential if the Bill is to be even-handed. The Minister may not accept its wording, but if the Government were to say that they would table a similar amendment on Report or in another place, we would not press it to a Division. 
 Amendments No. 425 and 426, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) spoke, are a pair, which substitute the phrase ''has reasonable grounds to believe'' for the word ''think'' in two different parts of the clause. I cannot cope with the idea that one has only to ''think'' that something is necessary and ergo, under the legislation, it is so. 
 Other hon. Members may have only noble and pure thoughts, but I admit to thinking things that could not always be defined as reasonable or having reasonable grounds. The answer will be, ''Ah well, that is the test if it ever gets to the High Court on judicial review''—but I have never been involved in judicial review. I have been told what it costs and it makes my eyes water, especially if it is the only remedy against people who have had a bright idea late at night after the pubs have closed and ''think'' that it would be a good thing to do. The amendment would make it much easier for people to make sure that the criteria used for arriving at a conclusion were, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, objective rather than subjective, and in the public interest rather than just a whim. 
 If the Minister does not like phrase ''has reasonable grounds'', amendments Nos. 430 and 432 use the formula, ''can demonstrate''. I prefer the former, but the same principle applies: there must be an objective test rather than the ability to act on a whim, which will be the case if the amendments are not accepted. 
 Amendment No. 431 is more significant than it appears at first glance. I can almost hear the Minister limbering up to say that it is rather pedantic, but I do not see it like that, because there is a difference between doing something to make things easier, and doing something because it is the only way of achieving what one sets out to do. I do not see compulsory purchase as a means of making things easier, and I doubt that any member of the Committee could persuade me to do so, although I am prepared to listen to their arguments. That may be the quick and simple way to proceed, and people may say, ''We can go home earlier if we do it,'' but compulsory purchase is not about facilitating those objectives. It is the ultimate last resort, which becomes necessary if all else fails and there is an overarching interest—if it is the 
 only way to do something that most people agree needs to be done. 
 There is a great distinction between the Bill as drafted, which says, in effect, ''We can do it this way if it will facilitate things,'' and a Bill that says, ''If all else fails and there is no other way, you may use compulsory purchase powers.'' That is the spirit of amendment No. 431: to introduce the idea that compulsory purchase must be necessary, rather than simply convenient, if land is to be acquired. There may be another way of doing it. After all, the Government have all the lawyers and experts, whereas we must rely on our native common sense. Common sense tells me that using the words ''is necessary'' is the way to do it. However, I am prepared to listen if someone has a better way of achieving that important goal.

Barbara Roche: It is a great pleasure to return to the Committee, and I thank the hon. Members for Cotswold and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for their kind welcome. It is interesting to note the Committee's progress—progress that has been ably led for the Government by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. It is an important day today: it is the birthday of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris). Disraeli said that when dealing with royalty one should lay the flattery on with a trowel, and in my dealings with the Whips Office I have often found that the same principle applies.

David Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?

Barbara Roche: Of course—but first I wish my hon. Friend many more long and happy years.

David Wilshire: If the Minister has worked out how to lay on flattery with a trowel for the Whips Office, will she give a seminar on it to some of my colleagues?

Barbara Roche: As a former Opposition Whip, I should be delighted.
 Compulsory purchase is an important subject. The amendments were probing, and let me respond to them in that spirit. Amendment No. 434 proposes that a compulsory purchase order may be made 
''after consultation with all interested parties and the public.''
 However, it does not clarify who ''all interested parties'' may be, or the extent of the consultation required. 
 I know that the Conservative Members will say that they are simply raising the issues, and that they do not have access to all the resources that the Government have. Nevertheless, local authorities must be clear about the procedure to be followed. It is also unnecessary to introduce a further consultation stage in the process. Once a compulsory purchase has been made, there is a statutory requirement—under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, which was passed by a Conservative Government—to advertise the fact at least twice in a local newspaper. Obviously, that Government considered those issues at the time. Under the same Act, owners, lessees and occupiers, other than tenants for a month or less, must also be served with notice. They have a right to voice their objections at a public inquiry before the Secretary of 
 State decides to confirm, or refuses to confirm, the order. 
 Before an order is made, there may also have been consultation—for example, if planning permission had been sought for the authority's proposals. Members of the Committee will be aware that that is one of the likely circumstances in which a compulsory purchase order can be made. In addition, the circular guidance is that, where practicable, authorities should seek to acquire land by negotiation before embarking on compulsory purchase. That is an extremely sensible procedure—but I do understand the concerns that are raised by compulsory purchase. 
 Amendments Nos. 425 and 426 would replace the word ''think'' with the phrase 
''has reasonable grounds to believe''.
 I understand the spirit in which the amendments were tabled by the Conservatives and supported by the hon. Member for Ludlow, but I do not see what the purpose of making the change would be. The word ''think'' has been used extensively in other parts of the Bill, and there is no reason to make a distinction in clause 73.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sure that the Minister will agree, in her usual reasonable way, that to have one's home compulsorily acquired is more serious than anything in any other part of the Bill that we have discussed. In framing the legislation, we should try to ensure that such purchases take place on a totally objective basis, not merely at the whim of the acquiring authority.

Barbara Roche: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I should make it clear that the word ''think'' does not imply a whim; I will speak about reasonableness later.
 The word ''think'' or ''thinks'' is not used only in the Bill, but in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and—I have looked further back—the Fire Precautions Act 1971, as amended by the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987. I asked my officials to do a search of Butterworths online—that may show that, as my 14-year-old would say, I need to get a life—and there are 4,500 references to the words ''think'' and ''thinks'' in previous legislation. As Michael Caine would say, not a lot of people know that—although the Committee knows it now.

David Wilshire: The Minister is deploying the sheep-stealing argument—that because people used to be hung for stealing sheep, that is a justification for carrying on hanging them. Just because the mistake has been made 4,500 times, it does not mean that we should make it again.

Barbara Roche: I had not come across the hon. Gentleman's argument before, and that is not the line that I am taking. I am saying that the drafting is not unusual for such legislation, and does not represent a new-fangled notion or definition. It has been used extensively before, not only by this Government but by previous Governments. That is
 relevant, because the definition will have been the subject of other discussions.
 I will also deal with what happens when bodies exercise their duties and powers. I contend that it is explicit that in exercising their duties and powers, public authorities are required to act reasonably. Therefore, that element is included. Amendments No. 430 and 432 would replace the word ''think'' with the phrase ''can demonstrate'', but ''think'' implies a belief on the part of the local authority in what it is doing, while ''demonstrate'' does not.

David Wilshire: I have been reflecting on the Minister's comment that it is explicit that public authorities must act reasonably, and I ask her to reconsider it. It may be implicit in her argument, but if it were explicit, it would be in the Bill. It is not in the Bill, which is why we have tabled the amendments—to make it explicit.

Barbara Roche: It is implicit that in exercising their duties and powers, public authorities are required to act reasonably. Government Departments, local authorities and all public bodies have a duty to act reasonably, and every local authority knows that any court would construe its duty as such.

David Wilshire: The Minister has just used the word ''implicit''. For the avoidance of doubt, will she confirm whether she originally used the word ''explicit'', and thus whether my intervention was correct? If she said ''implicit'' on the first occasion, I would owe her an apology for not having heard what she said properly. We are now using both words, and it would be helpful to know if her first argument was that it was ''explicit'', which is what I heard her say.

Barbara Roche: I gather that I may have said ''explicit''. ''Implicit'' is what I meant, so the hon. Gentleman was right to raise that point.
 The word ''think'' implies belief on the part of the local authority in what it is doing, whereas the word ''demonstrate'' does not necessarily do so. It would seem inconceivable that a local authority would seek to ''demonstrate'' that the requirements were satisfied yet not think them appropriate—but the word ''think'' actually requires such belief. To replace it with the word ''demonstrate'' would detract from that requirement. This is not sophistry, Mr. Amess; I am trying to explain how the provision would work in practice. 
 Amendment No. 431 seeks to replace ''will facilitate'' with ''is necessary for''. It would cause difficulties in interpreting what is necessary. It is clear that Opposition Members are concerned that acquiring authorities will exercise their compulsory purchasing power unreasonably by using it unnecessarily. The hon. Member for Spelthorne almost suggested that they make such decisions on a whim after the pub closes at 11 o'clock. However, there are already adequate safeguards to ensure that local authorities act reasonably and cannot acquire land under compulsory purchase unless it is in the public interest to do so—the hon. Gentleman himself mentioned the public interest issue. 
 As I have pointed out, clause 73 will require a public authority to show why it thinks why the development, redevelopment or improvement for which the land is to be acquired would be likely to contribute to the achievement, promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of the area. Development is the usual definition. In seeking to use its compulsory purchase powers as a mechanism for implementing its duties regarding well-being, a local authority will need to be able to establish why it thinks the compulsory acquisition of the land will contribute to that objective. 
 As for safeguards, a CPO has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State in order to be implemented. He not only has to be satisfied as to the statutory grounds for making the order, he also has discretion as to whether to confirm it. In exercising that discretion he must pay particular regard to whether the public interest in compulsorily acquiring the land outweighs the interest of the owners and occupiers in retaining it. Owners and occupiers who object will have an opportunity to make representations at a public inquiry. 
 If the Secretary of State does not have proper grounds for confirming a CPO, an aggrieved party may challenge its validity in the High Court, which has powers to quash it. Clause 73 enables a local authority to acquire land that it thinks will facilitate the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement as a means of bringing economic, social or environmental benefit to its area. I hope that that explanation has provided some reassurance to Opposition Members. I understand the nature of their amendments, but if they have tabled them as probing amendments I hope that they will now withdraw them.

David Wilshire: I have listened to all that, and the Minister can take a little comfort, in that she might have persuaded me that amendments Nos. 430 and 432 are not the best of amendments. I remain to be persuaded about the others. On amendment No. 434 the Minister went the long way around the course to give the simple answer, ''No, I don't agree with this.'' That is the most important amendment in the group, and I will listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has to say. I am not persuaded.
 The Minister argued that the amendment should be rejected because we had not set out the extent of the consultation or what we meant by ''all interested parties''. It follows that if we can explain what is meant by consultation and who all interested parties are, she accepts our case in principle and it is only the detail that concerns her. If those were her only grounds for rejecting the amendment, the sensible thing would be to say that the Government accept the spirit of the amendment and would like to find a formula that met their objections. I know that I am putting words into the Minister's mouth, but either she is against this in principle, or she is in favour of it but does not like the wording. I think I heard her suggesting that it was the latter. 
 She said that the interests of anyone who was involved in this, such as owners and tenants, were already safeguarded. She said that they had to be served with a notice and that if they were aggrieved they could air their views at a public inquiry. The Minister has put her finger on exactly what is wrong. If I were minding my own business one morning and the postman delivered a letter serving notice that someone was going to acquire my land unless I objected, I would not consider that to be consultation. It is jackboot activity all over again. There should be an obligation on the person who has the power to serve the notice to talk to the people first and to say, ''We have a problem. We think that this is the only solution. Can we talk to you about this because we may have to serve a notice on you?'' 
 That is more in the spirit of democracy than the existing arrangement and it also stands a reasonable chance of short-circuiting what can be a hugely lengthy and expensive process when everyone digs their trench, gets into it and starts to fight these things. It is not only the question of it being a more democratic process; it can also be a facilitating process. I therefore press the Minister to think more carefully about whether there is not something in the amendment, if we could get the wording right. If she is not willing to go down that route, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold will press this to a vote. 
 We inadvertently saw why amendments Nos. 425 and 426 are good amendments. I do not criticise the Minister, but ''explicit'' and ''implicit'' are easy words to confuse. It is easy to get the two concepts tied up together. You saw what happened, Mr. Amess, when there was a genuine misunderstanding across the Committee. These two amendments would prevent that. They would make for clearer debate. The Minister has the benefit of being a lawyer. I do not. I am very easily confused on these occasions. The Minister gave a wonderful example of why they would improve, rather than weaken the Bill. 
 I concede to the Minister's argument on amendments Nos. 430 and 432. On amendment No. 431, however, the Minister conspicuously failed to do anything about my reservations. She said that there were perfectly adequate safeguards. She said that compulsory purchase was a mechanism for implementation and that the use of compulsory purchase powers would contribute to the process. That is my objection. I know that they will contribute, but they can be the easy way out. The amendment says that it has to be the last resort. The example that she used reinforced my concerns. The only example that she chose to give was that compulsory purchase would contribute to the process—exactly what the amendment is designed to stop. The Minister has managed to avoid assorted debates about the way in which we are elevating the Secretary of State to a dictator who can trample over everything with his jackboot powers. Therefore, to say that the Secretary of State has discretion over something else only reinforces my sense that the Bill is bringing about a dictatorship.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The amendments are extremely important, but I shall adduce a different argument. Clause 73, and the amendments to it, relate to section 226 of the principal Act, which is the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There is an important shift between what the principal Act sets out on compulsory purchase powers and what we are discussing. The threshold in section 226(1)(a) of the 1990 Act is that land is ''suitable for and required'', whereas this clause says ''will facilitate'', so one can see that the threshold that must be crossed before an authority considers using compulsory purchase is already significantly diminished. Without the suggested safeguards, and given that that threshold is diminished, we are making the system more oppressive towards the individual citizen.
 The Minister said that the Secretary of State would have to confirm the compulsory purchase order, but section 226(6) of the 1990 Act states: 
''Before giving an authorisation under subsection (5), the Secretary of State shall
(a) if the land is in a non-metropolitan county, consult with the councils of the county and the district;
(b) if the land is in a metropolitan district, consult with the council of the district; and
(c) if the land is in a London borough, consult with the council of the borough.''
 There is all that consultation with the authorities, but not with the individual citizen. That is why the amendments are important. An additional safeguard is needed in the Bill, so that there is an objective test. 
 I am sorry that the Minister relies on previous legislation, much of it passed by previous socialist Governments, not a Conservative Government.

Tony McNulty: 1990?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Some of the legislation was passed under a Conservative Government, but much of it was not. The 1971 Act, which the other Minister cited, was passed under a socialist Government.

Tony McNulty: Ted Heath must have been a socialist.

Hon. Members: Red Ted.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Previous practice does not make something right, particularly when we are considering extraordinarily wide and important powers of compulsory purchase. Taking away someone's home is the most significant thing that a state can do after taking away their liberty, so we must get the Bill right. Those in another place will no doubt consider this matter carefully and have another debate on it. I think that the Minister's colleague was wrong to reject the amendments, so I urge my hon. Friends and our Liberal colleagues to vote in support of them, in the hope that that will bring the matter to the attention of the other place and possibly our own colleagues on Report, and that we can put it right.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 433, in
clause 73, page 47, line 24 at end insert— 
 '(d) the assembling of land for the purpose of development either by the public or private sector where the land subject to the compulsory purchase order has no known owner.'.
 I crave your indulgence, Mr. Amess, in offering my best wishes to the hon. Member for Wansdyke. I will not ask him how many times he has been 21 years old, but I suspect that it will have been more than a couple. I do not know whether it is because of his birthday or because Labour Members are demob happy, but it seems to be a lively morning. Hopefully, the amendment will add to the gaiety of events for a moment or two. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold queried why the amendment is standing on its own. When I first thought about the matter, I had it in mind to delete paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the suggested new subsection (1A), but, mercifully for the Committee, I did not table such an amendment. What I learnt about planning matters when I was in local government included a little about the proposal under discussion. I tabled the amendment to flag up circumstances that can crop up occasionally. 
 When I was the leader of the august Wandsdyke district council before it merged with the City of Bath, there was a site in the town of Keynsham that needed redevelopment for town centre purposes. It was thought that there was no need to invoke compulsory powers because it was a straightforward commercial development, until it became clear that it was impossible to establish who owned a piece of land in the middle of the area, no matter how hard the local authority or private sector tried. That made it impossible to assemble the entire site by negotiation because there was no one to negotiate with. I was finally persuaded that there was a need for a provision to deal with such a situation where a small piece of land was stopping the redevelopment of the town centre. 
 I want to explore a serious issue. It is often assumed by the majority of people that officialdom seeks compulsory purchase powers for its own benefits, such as for road widening, in the public interest. Such an argument is used regularly. However, all those years ago, there was much criticism of the council's action. Even I was persuaded to back the use of compulsory purchase powers, which was unusual for me. That the powers were used to assemble land that was for the benefit of the private, not public, sector, in itself, became an issue. The purpose of the amendment is to bring such action out into the open. We do not regard all debates about compulsory purchase as being 
 purely for the benefit of officialdom—the Government, local authorities and so on. It can, on occasions, be for the benefit of members of the private sector, who often complain most of all. 
 Some members of the Committee may believe that we should not use state powers to help the private sector. I anticipate hearing some extreme views of Labour Members and their saying that somehow or other a facility that helps the private sector will help capitalism and that that would be wrong. I thought that it was worth exploring such issues with the Minister of State. Given that I am a lay person, not a lawyer, I am the first to concede that my amendment may not be drafted in good English. I ask her to go easy on me when she says that its drafting is useless. I want to hear what she has to say about the principle of my argument.

Barbara Roche: Let me first respond to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, which are circumstances that we can all envisage, whereby the private sector might have interest in a project for which a CPO might be desired. One can imagine, for example, a big regeneration project that had the support of the local authority and the electorate, and for the completion of which one wanted to involve the private sector, as is so often the case now for such major projects. That might be a consideration for a local authority. The clause enables the local authority to do exactly that—to
''acquire land compulsorily for the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement'',
 and bring 
''economic, social or environmental benefit to their area.''
 If the hon. Gentleman wanted to tease out that point from the Government, he has his answer. 
 The amendment proposes a specific ground for acquiring land in unknown ownership. It is not clear from the amendment what steps an authority must take to ascertain ownership before land can be regarded as being in unknown ownership. I hope to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is not necessary. There is no bar against an authority making a compulsory purchase order to acquire land that has no known owner. In such circumstances, there is a statutory procedure for the service of notices of the making of the order in any case in which the name or address of any owner, lessee or occupier cannot be ascertained after reasonable inquiry. That is set out in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, which provides that the notice may be served by addressing it to that person by description of ''owner'', ''lessee'' or ''occupier'' of the land, and delivering it to some person on the land or, if there is no such person, leaving it on or near the land. I hope that that has reassured the hon. Gentleman, and I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

David Wilshire: I think that that is the answer that I had anticipated. The procedures that must be followed are engraved on my mind for ever. The leaving of the notice ''on or near'' the land raises issues of vandalism, and there is the question of how long it has to stay there for the courts to be satisfied. However, I think
 that I worked on the principle that, since there was no owner, the chances of that person challenging whatever process was gone through were remote indeed. Even if that had happened, the owner would at least have been known.
 I am grateful to the Minister for what she says. On the question of what steps must be taken to establish that there is no known owner, I could give the Minister a long and vivid description of the efforts made in a case that I have in mind, but you would rule me out of order, Mr. Amess. The Minister mentioned that there had to be a test of reasonableness. There is procedure—I know it very well indeed, and I knew it when I tabled the amendment. I wanted to get on record whether there can be a benefit to the private sector as well as the public sector. I have achieved that from the Minister, for which I am grateful, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have already run through the arguments about changing ''facilitate'' in subsection (2)(b) to ''require''. There is a much higher threshold in the principal Act, which required local authorities to do things, rather than merely facilitate them. Having made that change, in subsection (3) the Government propose adding a new section 226(1A) to the principal Act, which contains three paragraphs, and details some of the entirely new objects that local authorities may consider using compulsory purchase powers for, such as
''the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area''.
 The objectives might be laudable, but they are very wide and capable of wide interpretation. Proposed new subsection (1A)(b) refers to 
''the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area''
 which could include almost anything. Paragraph (c) is even wider. It refers to 
''the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area.''
 Almost any development covers environmental well-being. It is almost as if, Mr. Amess, you and I get up in the morning whether we feel better or not. 
 The Government are giving very wide powers in the Bill to local authorities. What perceived ill is there with the existing compulsory purchase powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990? What is wrong with those powers? What could be simpler than the two main grounds stated in section 226(1) of the Act? It states: 
''(a) is suitable for and required in order to secure the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement; or 
 (b) is required for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated.''
 That is dead simple and clear. Everybody understands it. It describes a precise power, rather than the wide power referred to in the clause. 
 Before we include clause 73 in the Bill, the Minister should carefully explain what is wrong with the present system. Why do the Government seek to give themselves these hugely wide powers? Too often in Parliament, we replace existing powers that are tried and tested in the courts and that have established a fairness for citizens with new wider powers, but we are never given an adequate explanation from the Government about why they are needed. 
 Before we decide whether to vote against the clause, we need a proper explanation. I ask with great humility why the Minister is giving herself these powers in the Bill.

Matthew Green: Although I supported the amendment tabled by the Conservatives, which would have improved the clause, I cannot support them in opposing it. The changes to compulsory purchase are necessary because the current laws and procedures are unwieldy and complex; they will still be fairly complex after the changes. As a result, the vast majority of local authorities have little or no expertise in dealing with compulsory purchase orders, so are reluctant to use them.
 In my constituency, the local authority, Bridgnorth district council, would be expected to be well used to using compulsory purchase, but I have no experience of its having done so. Recently, a company in Bridgnorth went bust with the loss of 224 jobs—the town has 10,000 adults, to give the Committee some scale of the job losses. I held emergency meetings with the local authorities—the county and district councils and Advantage West Midlands—to try to find ways to assist the area before the effects became too serious. 
 During those meetings, it became clear that the local authority owned practically no land. Bridgnorth district council is in an objective 2 area, and could therefore have qualified for European funding to regenerate the area and put in place the basic infrastructure for a business development plan. However, it cannot do so if it has no land in public ownership. Because the business development plan is in private ownership, there is no capacity for using European objective 2 money to regenerate the area.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What the hon. Gentleman said is incredible. He said that, because no land was in public ownership, the area cannot get objective 2 money and cannot regenerate the area. The measures are last resort powers. In the vast majority of cases, such matters are dealt with by negotiation and it is perfectly possible to bring about regeneration schemes with land in private ownership.

Matthew Green: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, he will realise that I am coming to that point. A lot of the land around Bridgnorth most suitable for business development is owned by a couple of landowners, at least one of whom is philosophically opposed to the public sector being involved in industrial sites, which he believes should be entirely private-sector driven. I know that because I had a private conversation with him. He is unlikely to agree to the sale of some the business land to the local
 council so that it can gear in up to a couple of million pounds of European money, in some cases. I know that that can work because South Shropshire district country, which is on the other side of my constituency, has been very successful at bringing in European money from objective 2 and, before that, from objective 5b status because it had land in public ownership.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Again, the hon. Gentleman is making an unreasonable assumption. In my experience as a surveyor, if people are offered a market price, which is usually considerably above the agricultural value when land is ready for regeneration or industrial use, they will usually sell it with alacrity.

Matthew Green: I shall not go into too much detail because I do not want to cause problems, but that does not apply because I am not talking about agricultural land. I agree that people would be very keen to sell agricultural land because of the difference in price. I think that agricultural land in my constituency is worth £3,000 an acre and industrial land is worth £80,000 an acre. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The land is currently zoned industrial land but because there is no land in public ownership in and around Bridgnorth, we are unable to use regeneration money and we might need to use compulsory purchase.
 Bridgnorth district council would not have a clue about how to use the current compulsory purchase rules. I hope that the slight simplification of the procedures will enable it to use them, if it needs to. The changes to compulsory purchase, and especially those in the clause, are welcome. I support the clause although I want to amend elements of clauses 74 and 76.

David Wilshire: Before I come on to the substance of what I want to say, I want to tread carefully so that I do not tax you, Mr. Amess, while commenting on the example given by the hon. Member for Ludlow as a reason why he will not support us. He gave us a classic case of using compulsory purchase powers for convenience, which is exactly what I am opposed to. He also developed a powerful argument about snouts in the trough with people saying, ''Me too, please'' and swilling around Brussels money. It is absolute lunacy to argue that money to help regeneration can be made available only if the public sector gets involved. I shall try your patience, Mr. Amess, but that is yet another example of the stupidity of so much of what goes on in Brussels. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the absurd situation that things must be nationalised before Europe wants to know about them. That is yet another powerful reason why we should say to the people of this country, ''Beware what the current Government are up to by trying to get close to those people.'' However, you would rule me out of order if I said any of that, Mr. Amess, so I shall not.
 I shall come on to the stand part debate proper. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made a telling point when he quoted Westminster city council as saying that the current procedures were unwieldy and complex. That delights me because it means that they are difficult to use. The council said that local authorities are reluctant to use the powers because 
 they are unwieldy and complex. That is exactly as it should be. The harder I can make it for councils to use the powers and the more I can drive them to being the route of last resort, the happier I am. I am not philosophically opposed to the powers, but I do not want to hear any more arguments such as those used by the hon. Member for Ludlow about the powers being convenient.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend used a phrase that absolutely sums up the debate. The powers should be used only in the last resort. I hope that he will repeat that phrase and that the Minister will take note of it. The powers are overbearing and should be used sparingly.

David Wilshire: Absolutely right. I would go on saying it ad nauseum except that I have been accused of being repetitive. That is exactly how I see the process. I am a very reluctant supporter of the principle because sometimes—I gave an example earlier—there is no other way of achieving something.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The classic example was the one that I gave in my opening speech. The Isle of Wight authorities tried to acquire compulsorily a dairy farm that had been there for centuries because the neighbours did not like the smells and the noise. It must be wrong to use the powers in such circumstances.

David Wilshire: I am sure that that is right, and I am coming to the alarming phrase ''social well-being'', but may I stick for a moment with the general question asked by my hon. Friend, which is, why are we making the changes? If the Minister of State is to persuade me that the clause is necessary, she must give a convincing reason why the system has to be changed. She might give the reason that we need to make it simpler, but simpler in my vocabulary means easier, and if the reason for clause 73 is to make it easier to use compulsory purchase powers, I will be persuaded that the clause should be struck out.
 The last thing that I want to do is to make the confiscation of land easier. Compulsory purchase is just that—confiscation. It might be confiscation with compensation, but it remains the taking away of land owned by an individual. Ownership of land is at the heart of the sort of people we think we are, how we view our future, what we want for ourselves and how our society is built. Owning one's own little patch is built into all of us. When we tell somebody that although he feels strongly about the land and owns a house and other property, and despite centuries of believing that that is the sort of country in which we live, we plan to give to the Government of the day the power to say, ''We are going to confiscate it, and all that we will discuss is an appropriate value,'' we attack the very fabric of our sense of identity. It is easy to say that the person will be paid well and can buy something else, so what is the problem, but to do so offends against the sense of self of that person. That is why I am philosophically so opposed to making the power simpler.

Matthew Green: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the rights of the individual are paramount—above the
 rights of the community? If he is, would he go so far as to say that there is no such thing as society?

David Wilshire: That is a hoary old quote, and a ridiculous question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has never read the whole of what was said on that occasion. However, it is a useful nudge on to my next point, having explained how I view such matters—[Hon. Members: ''Yes or no?''] Yes, I will, as a hostage to fortune, say that if push comes to shove I will always look first at the individual—the minority of one. It is easy to be part of the majority when we debate whether we should look after minorities. One of our jobs is to defend the minority interest, and the ultimate minority is the minority of one. The rights of the individual—[Interruption.] I make no apology for that. I am a Conservative and proud of it and that is where I come from. To say that ''there is no such thing as society'' is ludicrous and it has never been said in the context suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
 We are writing into the clause the phrase ''social well-being''. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of proposed new subsection (1A), which is set out in clause 73(3), all mention the 
''well-being of their area''.
 The hon. Member for Ludlow is right that that phrase raises the issue of the interests of the individual versus the interests of society at large. Of course it does, but one has to strike a balance. It would be just as trite if I were to say back to the hon. Gentleman that I assume, because of what he said, that he believes that everything is called society and nothing is called the individual, and I would not want to insult him by saying that that is what he was suggesting, but it explains why silly comments such as ''there is no such thing as society'' and ''there is no such thing as an individual'' get us nowhere. Both exist and we are here daily on behalf of our constituents to find a balance between the interests of the individual and those of society. I will always be further towards the individual end of the spectrum, but it is a subjective issue; no textbook can say who is right and who is wrong. 
 However, talking about the well-being of society gets to the heart of the Isle of Wight example and others. If someone is a nuisance and disturbs all their neighbours it is for the social well-being of the community to chuck that person out and put them somewhere else. Surely that is what social well-being means. The majority decide who is acceptable and who is not. We might return to the matter if amendments are tabled on Report. 
 Proposed new paragraph (b) refers to 
''the promotion or improvement of the social well-being''
 of an area. I certainly want that reference removed. I can see the sense of the argument about the social facilities of a community: compulsory purchase might be the only way to get enough land to provide recreation facilities such as a football pitch in a community.

Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend might not be old enough, but I can remember the 1970s, when local authorities, using the excuses set out in subsection (3), accumulated properties by means of
 compulsory purchase and then did nothing with them, to the detriment of the community. Will any action be taken to prevent that from happening again?

David Wilshire: In my hon. Friend's absence we said happy birthday to the hon. Member for Wansdyke, who is younger than me. I admit to being older than my hon. Friend thinks. I can remember the 1970s and some of the scandals when housing stock was assembled and then lay empty. The Government might want to make it simpler and easier to confiscate property, but what they intend to do with it remains to be seen.
 I am deeply worried about the principle of the clause and about what the Government are up to. They must tell us their reason for wanting to make the changes. Why does a decent, tried-and-tested method that is complicated and hard to use need to be replaced, other than to make it simpler? If the Government are going to make it simpler, we need to know how they envisage the simpler powers being used. Are the provisions of proposed new subsection (1A) what they have in mind? I am deeply worried about ''social well-being'', and it would be helpful if the Minister said what she understands by that phrase. Does it mean the convenience of the majority who could not care less about the individual?

Barbara Roche: This has been an interesting debate. Who said that deep political issues could not be explored when debating compulsory purchase? It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman says that there is a political difference between his interpretation and ours. Our purpose is to make the legislation simpler to interpret. However, the test will remain onerous.
 Clause 73 amends the basis on which local authorities may acquire land compulsorily for carrying out development, redevelopment or improvement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It will enable local authorities to acquire compulsorily land that they think will facilitate carrying out development, redevelopment or improvement and bring economic, social or environmental benefit to the area. That will assist authorities to fulfil their duties under section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. Clause 73 will give clearer criteria on which a local planning authority can make a compulsory purchase order and should encourage authorities to make better use of the power for regeneration and new development projects.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Would it be fair to say that the Minister's word ''clearer'' could be substituted by ''wider''?

Barbara Roche: No, I do not agree with that. The clause will make the criteria more apparent to local authorities. The hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in the subject, so he will know that the genesis of the Bill lies in wide consultation and discussion with local authorities, which have welcomed it. In its response, Worcester city council said that it
''would welcome any legislative reform which would make the CPO system simpler, fairer and quicker. In particular, we would welcome the suggested legal power which would enable local planning authorities, 'to exercise their compulsory purchase powers for a full range of planning and regenerative purposes'''.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister has broadened the debate, and it is important to set the context before we decide whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. She has said that the Bill is only part of the legislative package on compulsory purchase, so will she tell the Committee when the other part of that package will be implemented and whether it will be implemented by primary or secondary legislation?

Barbara Roche: Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter. We are in the process of analysing our current position. We have conducted consultation and said that we could not provide for the whole package in the Bill. I understand that we are also speaking to the Law Commission about the subject. As soon as I am aware of the timetable, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members.

Matthew Green: Does the Minister agree that by making compulsory purchase powers clearer, it will aid negotiations between councils and landowners? Currently, because landowners often have a pretty good idea that many councils do not know what to do, they can stall negotiations and put an end to the purchase. However, if they thought that the council would find it simpler to go for the compulsory purchase, that would aid the negotiations. I think that in future we will see many more speedy and successful conclusions, probably to the ultimate financial benefit of landowners.

Barbara Roche: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and valuable point. I hope that by setting out the criteria for the local authority, the Bill will also set them out for the landowner. I will refer to that later.
 Subsection (1) provides for the amendment set out in the subsequent subsections to be made, and subsection (2) amends section 226(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. As has been mentioned, section 226(1) currently enables a local authority to acquire compulsorily land that is suitable for and required to secure the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement. However, it does not specify the purposes at which such development, redevelopment or improvement should be aimed. 
 The effect of section 226(1) in its amended form will be to remove reference to the need for authorities to show that the land to be acquired is suitable and required for the purpose for which they wish to purchase it, and subsection (3) will insert a new, more clearly defined subsection (1A) into section 226. Local authorities may exercise their acquisition powers only if they think that the carrying out of the development, redevelopment or improvement is likely to contribute to the achievement or promotion of the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. There must be a shorter way of putting that, and I will think of a suitable acronym later.

Paul Beresford: Does the Minister not agree that, viewed from the other side, the provision allows an aggressive Big Brother-type local authority—there are a few of them—to use that broad approach to ride roughshod over many of the landowners for dubious benefits and just push the compulsory purchase whereas previously at least they would have had to justify it?

Barbara Roche: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I do not accept it. Let me try to reassure him. In a sense this argument repeats the points that were made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. The changes to the wording of section 226 should help those whose land is to be acquired to understand why the land is needed and to prepare appropriate counter-arguments if they wish to object. I have followed the arguments advanced by the Opposition closely. They believe that in some cases it is better to put more in the Bill for the sake of clarity. That is exactly what we are doing here: more is being put in the Bill.
 Any proposed compulsory acquisition under the new powers would remain subject to specific authorisation by the confirming authority, which would continue to require to be satisfied that the compulsory acquisition was justified in the public interests. That must be stressed. I understand the philosophical and political objections to the clause advanced by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, and I might not have satisfied him totally, if at all, but I believe that we are taking a step that has long been requested by local authorities.

David Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Roche It adds clarity to the process and I urge my hon. Friends to support the clause.

David Wilshire: As the Minister did not want to give way, I simply highlight the fact that she said that the change has been requested by many local authorities. Has any member of the public or landowner ever asked for it? If the answer is no, she has made my case that the reason for the change is merely to make it simpler for local authorities to use their jackboot alongside the Secretary of State's jackboot and have a dictatorship in which land is confiscated.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I listened carefully to the Minister. There are three further matters relating to the clause that I wish to explore. The first is subsection (4). If I read it correctly, it deletes section 226(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which reads:
''A local authority and the Secretary of State in considering for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether land is suitable for development, re-development or improvement shall have regard—
a) to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material;
b) to whether planning permission for any development on the land is in force; and
c) to any other considerations which would be material''.
 Perhaps the Minister could explain why that subsection is being deleted and being replaced by the three much wider tests. The Minister says that they are clearer, and they might indeed be clear, but they are also very wide powers. As I said before the economic, 
 social and environmental well-being of the area can encompass almost anything. 
 Secondly, because the compulsory purchase system will be more widely used, buying property will presumably involve more money. Will the Minister say whether the Government have given any thought to the financial implications of the clause? 
 Finally, I pressed the Minister on the other legislation, but we have not heard a word about the Crichel Down procedure. If someone's property is being acquired for the purposes laid down under the Bill, we need to know what will happen when the authority wishes to dispose of the property; that is covered by the Crichel Down rules. It may be a subject for debate on another day, but I know that the Government are considering modernising that procedure. Will the Minister confirm that, and perhaps write to members of the Committee and place a copy of the letter in the Library?

Barbara Roche: I shall break my habit of rising only once in order to deal with a couple of points. I cannot resist Crichel Down—I have a dim memory of doing an entrance paper that involved a reference to it, but I do not want to dwell on it because it involved ministerial resignations.
 Subsection (4) provides for the omission of section 226(2) of the 1990 Act, which currently specifies matters that the local authority and the Secretary of State have to consider when determining whether land is suitable for development, redevelopment or improvement. However, it will not be necessary as a result of replacing the requirement to show that the land to be acquired is suitable for the acquiring authority's intended purposes with a clear statement of the purposes for which the authority will in future be able to exercise compulsory purchase powers provided under the 1990 Act. We have substituted one for the other. 
 The simplification of the provision has been welcomed by a large number of local authorities, which clearly see it as something that can be used in appropriate circumstances to deal with matters such as regeneration, which can enhance their communities. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 - Basic loss payment

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 420, in
clause 74, page 48, line 5, leave out '7.5%' and insert '15%'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 421, in 
clause 74, page 48, line 6, at end insert— 
 '(2A) The Secretary of State may from time to time by regulations prescribe different amounts for the purposes of subsection (2) above. 
 (2B) The power to make regulations under subsection (2A) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
 Amendment No. 422, in 
clause 75, page 49, line 10, leave out '2.5%' and insert '5%'.
 Amendment No. 437, in 
clause 75, page 49, line 12 at end insert— 
 '(d) the land and building amount.'.
 Amendment No. 436, in 
clause 75, page 49, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
 Amendment No. 423, in 
clause 75, page 49, line 14, leave out '£25,000' and insert '£50,000'.
 Amendment No. 424, in 
clause 75, page 49, line 14, at end insert— 
 '(3A) The Secretary of State may from time to time by regulations prescribe different amounts for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) above. 
 (3B) The power to make regulations under subsection (3A) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
 Amendment No. 438, in 
clause 75, page 50, line 13, leave out subsection (3).

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We had a long debate on clause 73, but I make no excuse for that, because it is one of the most important clauses. It sets the context and framework for the whole of part 7 on compulsory purchase. We now move on to deal with the loss payments, which is a new concept.
 As we shall see from later clauses, loss payments will form a relatively small percentage of the total amount that will be paid in compulsory purchase. They have been introduced to speed up the system and make those whose properties are being acquired feel less aggrieved, less likely to object and more likely to comply with the procedure. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will not like it, but such people will feel that they have been treated more fairly if they are given generous compensation. 
 The purpose of the amendment is to probe that generosity. Compulsory purchase often represents only 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the total cost of a project. Whether the payment to the individual whose property is being acquired is 1 per cent. more or less makes relatively little difference to the total cost, but it can make a huge difference to the person whose home is being acquired. The odd £1,000 or £2,000 extra under the loss payments could make a great deal of difference. 
 The National Farmers Union states that to convince claimants that they are being treated fairly and to deter unnecessary objections, loss payments must be set at a sufficiently generous level to encourage such behaviour. It says that there is already an issue relating to whether all costs are being adequately covered, and cites one or two examples of how losses can be incurred when a farm is compulsorily acquired and the losses are not covered. For example, when a farm is acquired, the farmer probably has to go out and acquire a new farm, and he might be competing with other farmers in the area who have had their land acquired as well. The 
 land price is driven up, and the farmer has to pay more than the market price that he obtained for his farm. That loss is therefore not covered. 
 There are other types of loss. If a farmer loses his tenancy, he has to go out into the market where, if he is lucky, he can, as a result of various negotiations, replace the controlled tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 with a farm business tenancy under the 1995 Act, but that is likely to be for a shorter term and involve less security. When a barn is acquired, it is acquired at market value, not at replacement value—again, there is a loss. The loss payments are in some way intended to make up the balance. The purpose of this large group of amendments is to probe the Government about the levels and percentages that they have set for the loss payments. I will go through the amendments and probe the Minister about that. 
 I know that there are powers later in the Bill to vary the percentages and total amounts. That is welcome, because surely over a period of time, with inflation, the limits and percentages may well become out of date and inapplicable. It would be interesting to know why the Government have arrived at such percentages now. Amendment No. 420 would amend the 7.5 per cent. mentioned in proposed new section 33A(2)(b) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 to 15 per cent., which might be fairer. We could retain the £75,000 limit mentioned in the Bill, but simply make it fairer to those who own properties that have been acquired at fairly low values. They could get an initial higher payment and the overall limit could be capped so that those who own large value properties would not necessarily be paid any more. 
 I suspect that that amendment No. 421 is probably not necessary because of a later clause, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. Amendment No. 422 refers to clause 75, page 49, line 10 and proposes that 2.5 per cent. be replaced with 5 per cent. It would be interesting to know why and how 2.5 per cent. was arrived at. If one looks at the table in proposed new section 33B(8), which relates to the area of land, one sees that it has been quite cleverly set out. If one does some calculations, and talks about it in ordinary parlance that most people understand—in other words, if one talks about acres rather than hectares—one realises that it is £10,000 for 250 acres: only £40 per acre. That is for the first 100 hectares. For the next 100 hectares, the amount is only £15,000 for 750 acres—£20 per acre. We are talking about pretty small payments. 
 Those payments are in addition to what would be paid for the total value of the land. However, the normal value of land, even in the current agricultural depression, usually exceeds £2,000 per acre in most areas of southern England, so we are talking about values of about 1 to 2 per cent. Those are small values. 
 I do not wish to deal with amendment No. 437. Proposed new section 33B(2)(b) and (c), which say ''the land amount'' and ''the buildings amount'' respectively, probably already cover that. It would be otiose to try to amalgamate them in a subsection (d). 
 The purpose of amendment No. 436 is to leave out new subsection (3), which deals with the £25,000 limit 
 that may be paid to an occupier for loss of agricultural land. When compared with a farm's total value, £25,000 is a very small amount. Even a 100-hectare farm, which is relatively small, is worth £500,000 at £2,000 per acre for 250 acres. However, we are talking about an additional loss payment of only £25,000, which is 0.5 per cent. of that amount. I wish to ask the Minister precisely why that maximum amount has been set. 
 The purpose of amendment No. 423 is to increase that maximum amount from £25,000 to £50,000. Those are all matters of judgment as to what the maximum amount should be, and how generous one must be to achieve one's objective. In my experience, most people who have their property compulsorily acquired end up out of pocket. They never quite have all their losses or all their removal costs reimbursed. Somehow there is always a mechanism that means that occupiers are reimbursed for certain things only. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, if the state is acquiring land, it is to be hoped that those powers will be used as a last resort. If they are to be used, and somebody is to lose his farm or his home, the least that the state can do is to make a generous loss payment. 
 I do not believe that we should always follow everything that the Irish Government do, but they signed an agreement—

Matthew Green: Their planning system is good.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I shall not be led down that path, Mr. Amess, or I shall certainly be ruled out of order. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman in any case.
 As I was saying, the Irish Government agreed with their farmers to pay a fixed co-operation payment of 5,000 punts per acre on top of their standard compulsory purchase payment. I know that the punt is not worth the same as the pound, but that is still a substantial payment. As a matter of judgment, it would be interesting to know how the Minister thinks that the Bill's proposals compare to the Irish Government's arrangement.

Tony McNulty: They are in the euro.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister corrects me. However, they were not in the euro in early 2001 when that arrangement was negotiated. I cannot remember the exact date when the euro came into operation. I presume that the arrangement that came into effect in 2001 had already been renegotiated. I cannot remember the exact timing.
 Amendment No. 424 would enable the Secretary of State to vary the total limit and the percentage of the loss payment. I think that clause 76 covers that. 
 The amendments seek to probe the Government's thinking on how they arrived at the loss payments. The Minister did not answer my questions on financial considerations, or on anything to do with compensation in clause 73. Before we finish this part of the Bill, it would be useful for the Committee to have some idea of the public sector expenditure implications that the Bill will introduce, especially in 
 respect of loss payments. That will be an important consideration when we decide whether we feel that they are adequate, and therefore that the clause should be allowed to stand part of the Bill.

Matthew Green: I shall praise both the Government and Conservative Members, which will shock them. ''Typical Liberal,'' they will say. Well, there we are. I am pleased that the Government are incorporating the idea of loss payments into the Bill. The hon. Member for Cotswold mentioned certain circumstances, but he did not touch on the fact that when land or a building has been acquired, if the landowner wants to acquire similar land elsewhere to continue his business, he will face legal costs in respect of that transaction. Landowners are not currently covered for that, so I welcome the introduction of loss payments.
 I also welcome amendments tabled by Conservative Members. I accept that some of them are not worded ideally, but they are probing amendments. While I support the simplification of the compulsory purchase elements, I agree with the sentiment that the state needs to cover the likely losses that people may incur when their land is compulsory purchased. I look forward to hearing the Government's justification of the clause. Some figures to which it refers, especially the 2.5 per cent. on agricultural land, seem low. A proposal to increase that deserves scrutiny. 
 To overcome the problem of people feeling so aggrieved about compulsory purchase, a reasonably generous sum would be welcome, and would assist the process, rather than a figure that is regarded as below the bare minimum. There would be less resistance to compulsory purchase, because pre-negotiations would be based on what the person was likely to receive through compulsory purchase and the loss payment. A more generous allowance would encourage an earlier settlement, without having to go through legal proceedings, which I am sure all members of the Committee would regard as a satisfactory conclusion.

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold reminded me of the first 10 years that I spent in this place, when I was much involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. All my friends in the Republic wish that they had never heard of the euro and want go back to the punt. However, I would be ruled out of order if I pursued such an interesting matter.
 There are one or two general issues concerning the principle of loss payments that need ventilating, but they are more appropriate to be debated when we discuss clause stand part. I shall not mention them now—unless you are minded not to have a stand part debate, Mr. Amess. For the moment, I shall stick to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 436 and 438 both relate to clause 75. I shall need guidance at some stage on whether we can have two stand part debates on clauses 74 and 75, or whether you want to wrap the debates together, Mr. Amess, because the amendments jump between the clauses. 
 The amendments would delete the limit on the maximum amount that will be paid. Before the Minister points it out, I accept that we could have tabled an amendment to clause 74, which also contains 
 the principle that the Bill should state that the maximum payment will be X. We are not debating what the amount should be, but questioning why there should be a maximum amount. I need to hear a justification for that before I can support either of the clauses, and through amendments Nos. 436 and 438, I invite the Minister to tell us why there should be a maximum payment. What is wrong with paying what the property is worth? 
 I turn now to amendment No. 420, which relates to clause 74, and amendment No. 422, which relates to clause 75. I accept that if the Government want to be pedantic, they could say that we could have tabled yet another amendment to subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new section 33B of the Land Compensation Act 1973 under clause 75, which is another example of a percentage being mentioned. I could be uncharitable—I try not to be—and say that the percentages have been plucked out of the air, but I doubt that. If they had been, my guess is that they would have been the same. 
 Why did the Minister settle on those percentages? One is 2.5 per cent. and the other is 7.5 per cent. I suspect that a great deal of thought has been given to them. It may sound pedantic to ask: why not 2 per cent., rather than 2.5 per cent.? Somebody, somewhere must have done some calculations and arrived at a conclusion. If we are to support the Government and settle for 2.5 per cent. and 7.5 per cent., we must hear the argument in favour of those figures. I might have been the author of the amendments, but I accept that tabling amendments simply to double the percentages is but a means of triggering the debate. I am not accusing the Government of plucking figures out of the air, but I will readily admit that in doubling them I was guilty of that, to test the Government's arguments. I hope that the Minister does not simply say that our figures are wrong, because I want to know why hers are right. 
 On amendment No. 437, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said that he thought that it was not necessary to add at the bottom of the list in new section 33B(2) the words 
''the land and building amount''.
 I do not know whether that would be a sub-subsection. I can never get the jargon right. I have a suspicion that sometimes the value of the land is one figure and the value of the building is a different figure, whereas their value together is quite different. At the moment, the payment would be whichever of the two sums was the higher. 
 From my own experience of buying a home comprising both land and a building, I learned rapidly that the combined value of the land and the building is often in excess of the value of the land or the building, and that they are complementary to one another. If the Government do not want to pay according to the combined value, they should tell us why. My hon. Friend has made the point about generosity, and I shall return to that on clause stand 
 part. If the Minister resists the amendment that would add 
''the land and building amount'',
 there has to be a very good reason for doing so, because that would be departing from the generosity principle that my hon. Friend adduced for us. 
 Amendments Nos. 421 and 424 would prescribe different amounts. It is perhaps ironic that my hon. Friend and I are putting forward yet more powers for that jackboot dictator, the Secretary of State, but I am trying to be helpful to the Minister. She has missed some rare occurrences of my trying to help her Government, but I do so occasionally. The amendment would get the Government off the hook of the inflation that they are stoking up for the next year or two, which will make them more mean than they are at the moment. I hope that the Minister will accept help from whichever quarter it comes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend's speech, but I must take him back to his point about land and buildings. It is a good argument and it will become increasingly important over time, particularly in the south of England, where people will pay a significant premium for houses that have a bit of land with them, because they will start to become a scarcer commodity.

David Wilshire: As the owner of a house with land, I sincerely hope so—but perhaps that is declaring an interest. The Government, who do not like people having a pleasant home in the countryside, are using their dictatorial powers to demand that concrete be spread all over people's back gardens in order to meet some artificial targets. I accept that that is the Government's policy, and making people suffer that awful future is one more reason for generously compensating them. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
 Amendment No. 423 seeks to double the maximum amount payable. I will not go to the stake to defend the figure of £50,000; it is just a figure that has been tabled to trigger the debate. However, not even I can imagine that the Government are so stupid as to pluck the figure of £25,000 out of the air. Somebody somewhere must have had a very good reason for setting £25,000 as the maximum amount. The figure may reflect what the Government—who want to interfere in all our lives—think any individual in society ought to be allowed to have. That may be the philosophy behind it. There must have been a reason for setting a figure of £25,000, and I would be eternally grateful if the Minister would tell us what it was.

Barbara Roche: Let me see what I can do. I feel that the Opposition have been a tad ungenerous in not welcoming the new loss payment scheme, which is a great improvement on the scheme that we were left by our predecessors. The scheme will greatly assist landowners. However, I will leave their lack of generosity aside.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I, for the avoidance of doubt, put on record the fact that the official Opposition do indeed welcome the loss payments.
 The purpose of the amendments is not to be mean-spirited but to probe the Government's thinking on the levels of payments in the Bill.

Barbara Roche: I accept that. Let me try to respond to the points that have been raised. I do not think that I need detain the Committee on amendments Nos. 421 and 424. The hon. Member for Cotswold has referred to them already. They are redundant because, as the hon. Gentleman will agree, if we read to the end of clause 77 we see that the new section 33K already provides the regulation-making powers that he seeks. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cotswold has welcomed them.
 I turn to amendments Nos. 420, 422 and 423. It may help hon. Members if I outline the rationale behind the provisions that hon. Members are seeking to change. I understand that the purpose of the amendments is to probe that rationale. In setting the limits, our aim was to provide appropriate recompense for the impact on an owner of losing their assets at a time not of their choosing, and to offset the costs involved in compulsory acquisition by the benefits of speedy implementation. The subject of legal fees was raised, and they would be covered by the disturbance payment. 
 We hope that the additional loss payment will create greater good will among those whose properties are directly affected, so that they settle their compensation claims more quickly than might otherwise have been the case. That would clearly be in everyone's interests. The hon. Member for Cotswold mentioned the previous financial position of local authorities; he will know that that issue is covered in the regulatory impact assessment. 
 We set maximum figures because we do not consider that an ever increasing level of loss payment as the value of the asset increases is justified. The impact of the loss on the owner of the interest is unlikely to increase in proportion once the value goes into seven figures. Opposition Members will have deduced—indeed, they have said—that the maximum sum payable to an owner-occupier under the Bill's provisions is £100,000. That comprises a £75,000 maximum basic loss payment and a £25,000 occupier's loss payment to be paid if a person is also the occupier of the land. The sum will be payable where the value of the claimant's interest reaches £1 million. As Opposition Members have said, that would always be a matter of judgment based on experience. In our judgment, that figure represents the value of the kind of premises that might be occupied by the upper end of the range of small to medium-sized businesses. 
 The hon. Member for Spelthorne said, quite reasonably, that he imagined that the Government did not pluck the figures out of the air. He is right. The figure of 7.5 per cent. for the basic loss payment was derived from the current home loss payments regime, under which residential owner-occupiers can claim 10 per cent. of the market value of their interest in the dwelling. The smaller figure reflects the fact that those with an interest in non-residential property who are also in occupation of it will be entitled to claim an occupier's loss payment amounting to at least 2.5 per cent. of the value of their interest. That is modelled 
 closely on the existing home loss payments regime and it is provided for under the arrangements that would be inserted by clause 75. Thus, like a residential owner-occupier who was eligible to make a claim for a home loss payment, those who own an interest in and occupy a non-residential property will be entitled to claim a total loss payment of 10 per cent. of the value of their interest. 
 The notional three to one split between the basic loss payment and the occupier's loss payment is intended to reflect the fact that it would be expected that those with a valuable interest in the property would need a larger inducement to encourage them to co-operate in land assembly projects. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Cotswold, who speaks for the official Opposition, would understand that. 
 Home loss payments will remain at 10 per cent. There is no pressure for that percentage to change, and there is reasonably widespread agreement on it. I have to say, therefore, that we would need to see some convincing justification for specifying a different percentage under the new system. The 10 per cent. figure has been seen as a reasonable uplift for those unquantifiable losses caused by the element of compulsion; without justification, any more would seem like a free gift at the expense of the public purse. Opposition Members would expect the Government to be prudent with the public purse, and to use their best judgment about what is acceptable in the circumstances. 
 Nevertheless, if in the light of experience the Government believe that the percentages or maximum payments ought to be amended, they can make the necessary changes by using the regulation-making powers set out in new section 33K, which will be inserted by clause 77.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for the Minister's cogent explanation of how the Government arrived at the percentages and maximum upper limits. However, before the hon. Lady finishes on this subject, will she tell the Committee how she expects the maximum limit to be updated? Will it be updated in line with inflation or with property values, which generally exceed inflation? Clearly, over a period of time, even with inflation at its current low level, those figures could rapidly become outdated and insignificant.

Barbara Roche: Obviously, we shall have to see how the new regime goes, but the figures would probably be updated in line with property values; the hon. Gentleman has made an important point.
 By contrast, the intention of amendments Nos. 436 and 438 is not to increase the maximum amount payable, but to remove the limit completely. For the reasons that I have already set out, the amendments would, if they were accepted, cut across the whole purpose of the new loss payment regime. 
 The purpose of the new regime—it is important that I spend just a minute explaining it—is to make some allowance for the upset, discomfort and inconvenience of being required to leave a property or give up an interest in it at a time not of the owner's or occupier's choice. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman 
 recognises that that is an improvement on existing arrangements. We do not believe, however, that there is justification for an ever increasing level of recompense as the value of the asset increases. 
 The distress and inconvenience suffered by a claimant is unlikely to keep increasing in proportion with the value of the property. Our proposals, therefore, are aimed at giving the greatest benefit to the owners of small and medium-sized businesses, often family owned, for whom the loss of particular business premises may be keenly felt, if a family has put a great deal of time and effort into those premises. Such individuals are likely to have invested a great deal of emotional capital in their business. 
 I understand the spirit in which the amendments were proposed, but the changes suggested would give an ever increasing benefit to those often large corporations, with extensive land holdings and valuable assets, for which loss of the land compulsorily acquired may be less significant—certainly as regards emotional factors. Our proposals are designed to reflect the provisions of the home loss payment regime.

Matthew Green: I follow exactly what the Minister says. I agree that there should be an upper limit for large landowners. The opposite case, however, is that if the value of a property is very small—£10,000 or £20,000—the maximum payment of 10 per cent. will be a tiny amount, which may not cover the extra losses that we have been discussing. Rather than establishing a flat rate, would the Government not consider some sort of sliding scale to be more appropriate?

Barbara Roche: I understand that point, but we must be clear about the purpose of the home loss payment. It is to compensate for the inconvenience of land being acquired at a time not of the owner's or occupier's choice. I am unsure whether a sliding scale could measure that. We do not believe that an open-ended regime would make the best use of the public funds available for land acquisition to facilitate regeneration or major new developments, such as much-needed infrastructure projects, in which the private sector will almost inevitably be involved.
 The difficulty with amendment No. 437 is that it would give agricultural occupiers a bigger bite at the cherry than everyone else, by allowing them to receive a payment consisting of both the land and building amount, where that exceeded 2.5 per cent. of the value of the occupier's interest in the land. It would be unfair to favour agricultural occupiers over others in that way, and we can see no reason for giving anyone such an excessive sum. That would be especially relevant if the proposal to remove any upper limit to the amount payable were accepted. 
 The land amount and the buildings amount are each intended as alternatives where the value of the occupier's interest is very low—for example, in the case of a tenancy from year to year. The payment amounts have been calculated to take account of the fact that they are alternatives, designed to cover cases in which the occupier has very few buildings but extensive 
 landholdings, or vice versa. For those reasons, payment of a combined sum would be as unjustifiable as the removal of a ceiling on the maximum sum. 
 This has been a helpful debate, which has exposed several important issues, and I ask hon. Members to vote against the amendments if they are pressed to a vote.

David Wilshire: I have just one more thing to say about the specifics of the amendments, on which the Minister may wish to comment further. I listened with great care to her, and understood the arguments that she deployed. Because my disagreement with them is general, I shall explain why I do not agree with them when we come to clause stand part—with one exception.
 The Minister's argument for a maximum figure was that with ever rising property values, there must come a time when using a percentage figure becomes unreasonable. I do not follow that. I understand what she is suggesting, but she is inviting us to draw a distinction between the cost of property or land, which will go up, and the cost of other things, which presumably will not. She is saying that at some point the two will part company. That is not logical. The Minister describes a case in which there would be a maximum figure, irrespective of what happens in the future—unless we return to a means of altering the figures. 
 I press the Minister to think again. If it is right to start with a percentage of the value of the land or the buildings, I do not understand how it logically follows that there can be a cut-off point. The values of land and buildings tend to be linked to inflation. If inflation applies to them, it applies to everything else, and it would be reasonable that all values would go up. The Minister certainly has not persuaded me that a maximum figure is justified.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Near the end of her comments, the Minister dealt with the issue that my hon. Friend raised about taking the value of land and buildings together, because the value of the house with land may be greater than the value of the separate parts. She skated over it, and I would be grateful if she would clarify the matter. According to normal valuation principles, the two would be valued together, and one would usually expect payment on that basis. It may not apply under loss payments—that may be a different matter—but that is how a basic valuation would work.
 The Minister did not explain how the limits are to be amended. I am absolutely certain that they will have to be amended. She helpfully said that she thought that they would be amended in relation to property values. That is the correct way, of course, but it takes time for such things to go through the bureaucratic mechanisms that are involved. I can well envisage three or four years elapsing before the Government take the appropriate procedures through clause 77 to amend the limits. I am concerned about that. 
 Finally, it should be a general principle with compulsory purchase that a person is put in the same position after the purchase that they were in before. In other words, they should be able to purchase an equivalent property with the money that they have been given for their property. I have provided some examples to do with farming, in which farmers and tenants suffered losses for which they were not compensated. If that becomes an increasing trend and the Government realise that it is happening, I hope that they will review the maximum values for farming and increase the loss payments to cover some of the items for which there has not been compensation. 
 However, having said that, we have had a long debate on these relatively straightforward amendments. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, we welcome the loss payments. They are a useful addition to measures that already are in place. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 419, in
clause 74, page 48, line 8, leave out from second 'a' to 'case)' in line 9 and insert— 
 '(a) a freehold interest, or 
 (b) an interest as tenant from year to year, or 
 (c) an interest as tenant for more than a year 
 and in cases (a) and (c) above'.
 This is a very simple, straightforward technical amendment that would deal with a legal point. We believe that it is the Government's intention to make agricultural tenants eligible for basic loss payments. However, as they are tenants from year to year, they could fall through the qualifying interest definition in proposed new section 33A(4). The amendment would rectify that risk, and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether she agrees with it.

Barbara Roche: I shall try to be brief, as the hon. Member for Cotswold was commendably so.

David Wilshire: Just say yes.

Barbara Roche: You know what it is like, Mr. Amess; lawyers are never brief. My apologies; I shall earn myself the unpopularity of not only Opposition Members but my hon. Friends.
 I must tell the hon. Member for Cotswold that there is a mistake in the drafting of the amendment. It mentions ''cases (i) to (iii) above'', but I assume that it should refer to cases (a) and (c). [Interruption.] I take it from the hon. Gentleman that that is so.

David Wilshire: I am confused. The Minister says that there is a flaw in the amendment because it mentions cases (a), (b) and (c) instead of cases (a) and (c), when in fact, the amendment says:
''cases (a) and (c) above''.
 Have I been confused by what the Minister said? Was I not listening carefully enough, or has the Minister made a mistake?

Barbara Roche: I understand from my colleagues that the amendment was certainly not that way originally. Anyway, perhaps we should move on. I think that the hon. Member for Cotswold changed it.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. In the marshalled list of amendments before me, which is dated 28 January—that is today—the end of amendment No. 419 says:
''and in cases (a) and (c) above''.
 Can you confirm that we are debating what is on that list, irrespective of what might have been tabled or printed elsewhere, or will we have to refer back to some other document, Mr. Amess?

David Amess: Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman. The amendment is correct as on the amendment paper; originally, there was a printing error.

Barbara Roche: That is a great help. I was about to say that I have taken instructions; that takes me back a few years. The amendment was originally printed wrongly, but it has clearly now been printed correctly. I accept completely that Opposition Members have before them the amendment in the correct form.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Just to clarify matters, I may have led the Minister down the path of temptation, because I, too, was reading from a previous version of the amendment paper. I am grateful that we have confirmed that there was a printing error, and that it has now been corrected.

Barbara Roche: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—

David Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?

Barbara Roche: Yes.

David Wilshire: Will the Minister accept that I am sorry if I implied that she had made a mistake? Clearly, she did not; someone else did. I hope that I did not imply that she was wrong.

Barbara Roche: Not at all. The hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Cotswold are generous, as always.
 I take it that the intention behind the amendment is that in the case of a tenant from year to year, there would be no requirement for qualifying interest to subsist for a period of at least one year. Let me explain why I am not sure that I see the point of the amendment. If a claimant occupies property under a tenancy from year to year, he or she will have an interest that subsists for 
''not less than one year'',
 and therefore will qualify for a loss payment under the clause—provided, of course, that the claimant's interest is being acquired compulsorily, as that is one of the qualifying criteria set out in new section 33A(1) as inserted by clause 74. If, however, a claimant's interest is not being acquired compulsorily, they will not qualify for the loss payment. Given that a tenancy from year to year could simply be allowed to lapse once a relevant CPO had been confirmed, or that it could be terminated in another way, such as by notice to quit or surrender, it would be for the acquiring authority to decide whether to include such an interest in the CPO. It is worth noting that the value of a tenancy from year to year will in any case be minimal, 
 so the basic loss payment and the occupier's loss payment based on the value of the claimant's interest would also be minimal. If the interest is acquired compulsorily, the tenant could benefit from an occupier's loss payment calculated on the land amount or the buildings amount. 
 Where a tenancy is terminated or surrendered instead of the interest being compulsorily acquired, compensation may still be payable to the tenants. For example, they may be entitled to compensation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954—I spent some of the more boring months of my life working on that—the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 or the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. 
 However—this is the pertinent point, and I apologise to the Committee for taking so long to reach it—it would not be appropriate for us to extend the loss payment regime to cover people whose property is not being acquired under compulsory purchase powers. That would open up a wide field on which it would be difficult to impose boundaries. 
 I say to the hon. Member for Cotswold that I understand the spirit in which the amendment was tabled. However, although it looks simple on the surface, it opens up a complex issue. I hope that he will accept my explanation and withdraw the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister mentioned section 11 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Fortunately, it just so happens that that has come into my possession. Reading it very quickly, I think that it says that the notice to treat has to be served only on the landlord, not the tenant, although I may have got that wrong. I accept the Minister's explanation. If she makes it crystal clear that there is no danger that tenants can fall through the loss payments regime because of the wording of the clause, I will have no problem and will immediately withdraw the amendment.

Barbara Roche: I referred to section 20, not section 11. I said that people might be entitled to compensation under that where a tenancy was terminated or surrendered instead of being compulsorily acquired, so we feel that those interests are covered. If it is compulsorily acquired, that is a different matter, but compensation may be available through other avenues.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This is a technical matter, and I should like to look carefully in Hansard at what the Minister has said. I am sure that if we still have doubts, we can return to them on Report or in another place. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire: May I make it clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has, that I support the principle of the new loss payment scheme? It should perhaps have been introduced some while ago. [Hon. Members: ''Ah!''] One reason why I spent so
 long on the Back Benches was that I used to say things that were critical of the previous Government, but I shall let that be. No one is perfect. My party is slightly less imperfect than this Government, but that is a different issue.
 What concerns me about the principle of a loss payment scheme is that, whereas we need such a scheme, I am afraid that the Government are not going about it correctly. Under various amendments, we have heard about the introduction in a sense of the attitude that applies to rate support grant settlements, which involves the use of a formula. In this case the formula is the percentage: we consider that x per cent. is okay or that y per cent. is okay, and we will apply that across the board. When somebody qualifies for a payment, a formula is used to calculate the amount rather than use common sense and judge individual circumstances. My experience of a formula in any situation, whether for rate support grants, council tax or for the payment of compensation, is that sooner or later it will come a cropper. There is always an instance when it is blindingly obvious that more is due than the x per cent. that the formula allows. 
 There is no provision in the clause that the above formula is no substitute for common sense, and that is to be regretted. Somewhere along the line, the Government of the day, whatever their political colour, will find themselves embarrassed if they stick to that arrangement. I do not see what is wrong with using market value. I know that some in Parliament do not like the market, but it is possible to establish the value of losses. Many people specialise in working out a realistic figure for losses in all sorts of circumstances. One need only consider the insurance industry, which constantly deals with complicated claims. It is possible to assess the cost of rebuilding, for example, although, of course, it is very difficult to put a value on pain and suffering or on the loss of profits. However, the private sector is not subjected to a formula; it is subjected to negotiation. Therefore one arrives at a realistic figure in each case that is acceptable to the insurer and to the claimant. It should not be beyond the wit of man, and certainly not beyond the wit of the Government and the civil service, to come up with a formula of words rather than a formula of figures to deal with the issues that arise after a valuation of a property has been made. 
 I am against formulas in principle; the market value has something to offer. I am also concerned that the clause contains no reference to replacement values. It is all very well to ask, ''What are you losing? You are suffering some inconvenience and interruption and we realise that you would rather not go, so we will pay you something for it.'' However, there is no real understanding that because you are being forced to move on you will have to replace the value of what you have. It may appear to be like for like, but because of the circumstances it is not. 
 Because we are so close to finishing, Government Members may have thought that they have avoided hearing about Heathrow airport for a whole morning—[Hon. Members: ''Oh no!'']—but I am sorry to have to disillusion them. The planning of 
 terminal 5 provides a wonderful example of a replacement issue. 
 When terminal 5 was being planned, the value of some cottages beside the sewage works, where terminal 5 is being built, had to be decided. You can imagine that a group of cottages between two runways next to a sewage works had a value that was much lower than that of nice cottages with a garden not next to a sewage works between two runways at the world's busiest international airport. Bit by bit, the owners were winkled out, often against their wishes, until one family remained. It had reached the stage when compulsory purchase powers were being contemplated against the remaining family. The family merely wanted to move to a little house with the same square footage and the same amount of garden near their families. They lived at the western end of the airport and the rest of the family was living to the south of it in Ashford in my constituency. The difference in value between being bought out next to the sewage works and moving to the same thing in highly desirable Ashford was astronomic. 
 If a formula had been applied, even if it involved a topping up because of the inconvenience, the difference in value would have been such that it would still have been impossible for that family, whom I represented, to move into a maisonette or bedsit. Because the public sector was luckily not involved in compulsory purchase, BAA was persuaded to say to those people, ''We get the message. Go and find yourselves a like-for-like, same square footage, same-size garden house and we will buy it for you if you give us what you own at the moment.'' That is what I mean by replacement. 
 That situation will occur time and again with compulsory purchase. I am amazed that the Government have decided to refer to the fact that under certain circumstances the replacement costs are the costs that shall be followed when it comes to compensation.

Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend was not on the Bill for the channel tunnel rail link, but the Minister's attitude is completely opposed to that taken by the Labour party when it was in opposition. At that stage, there was an open purse, so perhaps there will be some relief on the Heathrow issue.

David Wilshire: Yes; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have mentioned Heathrow, but I do not wish what I say to be too taxing for Government Members.
 The concept of generosity should be included in the Bill. All too often, the reason for compulsory purchase is the need to speed something up. There are two ways to speed things up. When the French built the channel tunnel rail link, the French Transport Minister said, ''When you're going to drain the swamps, don't consult the frogs.'' One can go down the route of not consulting, taking jackboot powers and building railway lines, or one can use compulsory purchase. Compulsory purchase requires loss arrangements with which the concept of generosity helps. When dealing with the amendments, the Minister argued that it was up to the Government not to squander taxpayers' money, a point with which I agree, as I am sure that 
 she expected me to. As a general point, however, paying over the apparent odds does not necessarily mean a bad deal. I therefore thought that the clause would refer to that point. 
 I have another example of what I have in mind from my constituency. One of the busiest bits of the M25 runs through my constituency, and every so often the Government of the day decide that it would be a good idea to widen it again, which does not seem to solve the problems but nevertheless we go through the experience on a routine basis. Not too many people live near the M25, which is a relief, but the last time they discussed acquiring the necessary land compulsorily the proposal would have affected a dog kennels. Time and money were saved when someone had the good sense on this occasion to say, ''We will buy the kennels at a realistic price.'' Compulsory purchase was not necessary because a sensible price was negotiated. The owner of the land was pleased to sell it, and he made it his business to go to neighbouring properties to ask them not to complain because he wanted to get his cheque as quickly as possible. The process therefore served to keep people quiet.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As it seems that my hon. Friend will be talking when the Committee adjourns, will he press the Minister for an answer when she comes back on the number of houses that she expects to be affected by the clause and the public expenditure implications, about which we have heard nothing. Will she come armed with that information for this afternoon?

David Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has obviously given the Minister notice. When he rises to speak in the clause stand part debate she will know what he is going to say. With the lunch break coming, she will have plenty of time to go away and, rather than having lunch, work out the figures to inform my hon. Friend.
 The notion of generosity needs to be included in the clause. The Minister might want to portray it as my arguing for using more taxpayers' money than is necessary. To screw people down to the lowest possible price will often result in delay, attempts to provoke a dispute and the need for a public inquiry. The net result will be such disputes going on and on and on. It would be harmful if a development were frustrated. If the public inquiry and the dispute go on long enough, given the inflation that the Government are in the process of stoking up, in the end even the base figure that has to be paid will be higher than it would have been had they been generous in the first instance.

David Amess: Order. This is not the moment for the usual exchange of courtesies, but I shall not be with the Committee this afternoon. Besides congratulating the hon. Member for Wansdyke on his birthday and again congratulating the hon. Member for Ludlow and his wife on the birth of their baby daughter, I should congratulate all the members of the Committee on the way in which they have conducted themselves. I want to thank all members of the Committee for the courtesy that they have shown me. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I should like to thank the Clerk and her
 team for keeping us in good order. I shall now adjourn the Committee.

Barbara Roche: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I know that this is not really the right time for such comments, but as you will not be in the Chair for our afternoon sitting, before you adjourn the Committee this morning I would like to put on the record my thanks to you for your chairmanship, and your unfailing courtesy and good humour. I shall convey my thanks to others, including your co-Chairman Mr. Pike, later today.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. May I associate myself with the Minister's words of appreciation to you, as we shall not see you this afternoon?

Matthew Green: Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. I join the Minister and the hon. Member for Cotswold in thanking you for your chairmanship, and your assistance to us in the weeks for which we have considered the Bill in Committee.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.